645506

article2016
research-
ADHXXX10. 1177/152342 231664 5506Advances in Developing Human ResourcesArdichvi li et al.

Introduction
Advances in Developing Human
Resources

Leadership Development: 2016, Vol. 18(3) 275 –285

© The Author(s) 2016

Current and Emerging Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Models and Practices DOI: 10.1177/1523422316645506

adhr.sagepub.com

Alexandre Ardichvili1, Kristina Natt och Dag2, and

Steven Manderscheid3

Abstract The
Problem.
Leadership development (LD) is the largest expense item in the overall training and
development budget of the majority of business organizations in the United States
and many other countries of the world. However, industry reports and academic
articles alike suggest that, in many cases, organizations are dissatisfied with the
outcomes and impact of their LD efforts and are experimenting with new approaches
to LD in search for better solutions. At the same time, the academic literature on LD
practices struggle to keep up with the fast pace of the emergence of new trends and
equally rapid changes in established practices. Therefore, there is a need for periodic
updates and reviews of current and emerging trends and models in LD theory and
practice.
The Solution.
This article provides a brief overview of current and emerging theoretical models and
frameworks in leadership and further discusses emerging LD practices.
The Stakeholders.

1
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
2
North Carolina Medical Society, Raleigh, USA
3
Concordia University, St. Paul, MN, USA
Corresponding Author:
Alexandre Ardichvili, University of Minnesota, 86 Pleasant St. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
Email: ardic001@umn.edu
276 Advances in Developing Human Resources 18(3)

This article will be of relevance to HRD academics, scholar-practitioners, and

students, studying HRD and LD, and HRD practitioners in charge of LD in a variety
of organizations.

Keywords
leadership development, leader development, leadership theory, HRD
Introduction
In 2008, Advances in Developing Human Resources (ADHR) featured a special issue
on the emerging practices in leadership development (LD) with the goal to “provide
leadership development scholars and practitioners with new ideas for research and
leadership development practice” (Ardichvili & Manderscheid, 2008, p. 619). An
important topic in 2008, the field of LD continues to evolve at an unforeseen pace. LD
“is now central to HRD [human resource development] theory, research, and practice”
(Madsen, 2012, p.134) and “is arguably one of the most important activities undertaken
by HRD professionals” (Callahan, Whitener, & Sandlin, 2007, p. 146).
According to a report from Bersin by Deloitte (2014) based on research in 300
organizations in the United States, training budgets have steadily increased from a
significant decline in 2008 and 2009. Moreover, the study discovered that LD made up
35% of total learning and development budgets. Loew and O’Leonard (2012) reported
that LD is an annual business of 14 billion dollars in the United States alone.
Leaders are central to fostering the development of healthy work cultures. According
to Schein (2010), “culture is ultimately created, embedded, evolved, and ultimately
manipulated by leaders” (p. 3). Stogdill stated in 1974 that “there are almost as many
definitions (of leadership) as there are persons who have attempted to define the
concept” (p. 259). A simple search on Google yields millions of definitions (and our
recent search on Amazon turned up over 20,000 books on the topic of leadership). For
the purpose of this article, we use Yukl’s (2009) definition, who argued that leadership
is “the process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be
done and how to do it, and the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts
to accomplish shared objectives” (p. 2).
A number of scholars suggested that, in an attempt to define LD, it is important to
distinguish between the terms leader development and leadership development (LD)
(Ardichvili & Manderscheid, 2008; Day, 2000; Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, &
McKee, 2014). Day argued that leader development aims at building human capital,
while LD aims at building social capital. Day et al. (2014) posited that “leader
development focuses on developing individual leaders whereas leadership development
focuses on a process of development that inherently involves multiple individuals (e.g.,
leaders and followers or among peers in a self-managed work team)” (p. 64). Day,
Harrison, and Halpin (2009) further pointed out that the design of individual leader
development programs needs to take into account the fact that such development is
always part of a larger process of adult development. This position corresponds to
Kegan’s view of leader development as a progression through stages of moral growth
and individuation (Kegan, 1982; Kegan & Lahey, 2009). The implication is that LD
Ardichvili et al. 277

efforts need to take into consideration individuals’ progression though stages of

cognitive and moral development, and also their place in the larger context of
organizational and societal influences, including culture, power and politics, and
continuous learning processes. Reviewing a variety of perspectives on LD, Mabey
(2013) pointed out that while the majority of LD academic writing and practical activity
is driven by the functionalist assumptions with “primary concern for good design and
enhanced corporate performance” (p. 359), interpretive, dialogic, and critical
perspectives and discourses on LD provide alternative views of the meaning of this
phenomenon.
Since 2007, ADHR published four issues related to leadership and LD. Stanley
(2009) led an issue on leadership from the perspectives of African American women,
Mumford and Gibson (2011) edited an issue on leadership and creativity, Madsen
(2012) developed an issue titled Women and Leadership in Higher Education, and
Edwards and Turnbull (2013) edited an issue called A Cultural Approach to
Leadership Development. Furthermore, a significant number of individual articles on
LD-related research were published in other HRD journals, leading management
journals, and in specialized publications like Leadership Quarterly and the Journal of
Leadership and Organization Studies (e.g., Clarke, 2013; Ligon, Hunter, & Mumford,
2008; Mabey, 2013; Pless & Maak, 2011). These special issues and individual articles
made important contributions to our understanding of various aspects of LD
processes, but none of these publications had a goal of providing an overview of a
wide range of emerging or current practices in LD. It must be noted that a literature
review-based article by Day et al. (2014), published in the Leadership Quarterly,
provided a comprehensive overview of research on LD, conducted over the last 25
years. However, the goal of the article was not to discover new, emerging trends and
approaches; rather, it focused on understanding how research on LD has evolved in
terms of its methodology and areas of focus (e.g., focus on skills, personality, social
development, 360 feedback, and self-development).
Therefore, in light of the emergence of new trends and approaches and recent
significant changes in many of the established practices, we believe it is important to
revisit topics related to LD practice and theory in a special issue of ADHR, a
specialized HRD journal, catering not only to scholars but, most importantly, to HRD
scholarpractitioners. To achieve this goal, this special issue includes contributions
made by academics and scholar-practitioners and covers a range of topics, with
articles falling broadly in two categories: contributions discussing emerging
leadership models and frameworks that are providing theoretical basis for current and
future LD practices; and articles documenting and discussing new trends and practices
in LD. Accordingly, this introductory article provides a brief overview of new
theoretical frameworks, informing LD practice, and then discusses emerging LD
practices and implications for
HRD.
278 Advances in Developing Human Resources 18(3)

Emerging Models and Frameworks, Informing LD

Practice
Despite the fact that there is a wide range of validated theories and frameworks that
can be used as a foundation for LD programs, numerous academic and practitioner
articles and reports, published in recent years, suggest that most LD programs fail to
achieve their goals (Gurjian, Halbeisen, & Lane, 2014; Kaiser & Curphy, 2013).
Sinar, Wellins, Ray, Abel, and Neal (2015) found that only 15% of human resource
professionals rated their future leadership bench strength as satisfactory. Different
scholars offer different explanations of this perceived failure of LD efforts. Gurjian
et al. (2014) pointed out the lack of attention to specific contextual factors when
developing LD programs, a gap between teaching and reflection and real work
applications, underestimation of entrenched mind-sets, and failure to measure results.
Likewise, Kaiser and Curphy (2013) listed the lack of evaluation and measurement of
LD outcomes beyond Kirkpatrick’s first level as one of the main problems; in
addition, their list included persistent confusion about the definition of leadership,
over-reliance on competency models, focus on individuals and individual
development as opposed to focus on team leadership, and the lack of acknowledgment
of the central role of power relationships. Petrie (2014) focused on the excessive faith
in competency models as foundation for developing leadership programs, and
Ruderman, Clerkin, and Connolly (2014) pointed out the lack of focus on collective
(as opposed to individual) leadership. Kellerman (2012) pointed to the importance of
looking at leadership as embedded in a context. However, although recent leadership
theory has included more attention to context as well as an increased focus on a more
dyadic leadership model, Kellerman concluded, “while I argue for a leadership model
that is more holistic and inclusive (leaders, followers, and context), the model that
persists and prevails remains resolutely leadercentric” (p.11).
With this in mind, there is a need to “move away from isolated methods and toward
an interconnected process of personal and organizational discovery and learning”
(Hanson, 2013, p. 106). In this context, Petrie’s (2014) idea about the new paradigm
for LD as a collective process appears as an important challenge to address currently.
There is little doubt that being a leader in an organization has become more challenging
due to the pace of change and the complexity of the challenges faced by leaders (Petrie,
2014). Moreover, Petrie suggested that there is now a greater level of
interconnectedness globally, and this level of connectedness has presented additional
challenges for leaders. In a report from Bersin by Deloitte (as cited by Hollon, 2011),
findings suggest that organizations will have to move from top down leadership models
to more inclusive participatory global leadership styles. In addition to complexity and
global presence, leaders further need to adapt to technology and virtual leadership (
Hollon, 2011).
Furthermore, Petrie (2014) suggested that there needs to be a greater focus on
innovation in LD methods. Sinar et al. (2015) further emphasized that one size does not
fit all in LD. Sinar et al. also found that leaders across their study said that in-role
assignments are most effective for developing leadership skills. In addition, Sinar et al.
Ardichvili et al. 279

suggested that there is a great need for leadership professionals to develop initiatives
that match the timing of the target. This essentially means that leadership skills need to
be developed at different rates depending on the leaders’ level in the organization.
Another significant trend noted by Petrie (2014), Ziskin (2015), and Baker (2014) is
a greater focus on collective rather than individual leadership. Ziskin emphasized that
organizations should not only develop individual leadership capacity but also need to
focus on the leadership capacity of the organization as a whole. At the same time, as
pointed out by Kellerman (2012) and Petrie (2014), the majority of LD programs are
focused mostly on individual development while ignoring the collective and
organizational-level development. Baker (2014) and Petrie (2014) both believed that
LD is falling behind the societal trends, which, among other things, include the
transition from leadership based on the power and role of iconic individuals to
leadership residing in networks of people.
Another key trend in LD is transferring ownership of LD and responsibility for
development to the individual. Using from Kegan’s (1982) theory of adult
development as the foundation for his argument, Petrie (2014) noted that people learn
and develop best when they are in charge of their own development. Ziskin (2015),
however, looked at LD from a coaching perspective. Ziskin suggested that coaching
has moved “from fixing the broken leader” to helping leaders “build muscle memory”
which will help them address key decisions and situations.
Several articles in this special issue contribute to our further understanding of the
evolving trends in LD theory and practice by discussing emerging theoretical
frameworks that share common focus on issues beyond the individual development
and increased attention to contextual factors and larger systemic and environmental
influences. Thus, one of the fast growing trends is the need for global LD, which, as
suggested by Barrett and Beeson (2002), is one of five critical forces that will shape
leadership competencies in the future. Although it can be argued that global LD is
more a context than a theory, a theoretical framework is the structure that can hold or
support a theory of a research study (Swanson & Chermack, 2013). To that end,
Denise Cumberland, Ann Herd, Meera Alagaraja, and Sharon Kerrick, in this issue,
explore the emerging construct of global LD, suggesting that there is a lack of
attention to assessing what global leadership competencies are and how these
competencies are developed. Through a cross disciplinary examination of articles on
global LD together with organizing and categorizing current global leadership
assessments, the authors present a framework for a systematic method for identifying
instruments that measure global competencies. The authors argue that global LD
needs to incorporate aspects such as personality traits and competencies as well as
behavioral skills.
Another increasingly pressing concern is the adaptation of the LD approaches and
models to the needs of new generations of leaders that, in recent years, have been
taking over the leadership roles, replacing the members of the baby boom generation.
By 2020, 46% of U.S. workers will be Millennials (Lynch, 2008), which is a
generation of professionals with a much different approach to work and career
compared with not only baby boomers but also Generation X. Alexander and Sysko
280 Advances in Developing Human Resources 18(3)

(2013) suggested that Millennials bring a different work ethic embedded in narcissism
and cavalier attitude to work, counterbalanced by their loyalty to individual managers
as opposed to organizations and commitment to idealistic corporate visions and
values. Furthermore, they are ready to work hard although with expectations of
immediate reward and recognition. In this issue, Katherine Yeager and Jamie
Callahan explore LD among Millennials through identifying how leadership
experiences shape leader identity development. The authors present a model that
considers the dynamic, interactive process of leader identity development and
identifies the importance of relationships as part of this process.
A growing trend in the digital era is e-leadership and virtual leadership. DasGupta’s
(2011) review of the literature on e-leadership highlighted more than 20 different
theoretical contributions to the discussion of this topic in the past 10 years. Gurr (2004)
argued that although e-leadership is a relatively recently emerged concept with
continuing conceptual ambiguity, there are significant differences between leading
traditional organizations and those that have technology-mediated environments. These
environments appear to require leaders to cope with paradoxes and dilemmas, and with
the associated behavioral complexity. Kerfoot (2010) defined virtual leadership as
leading an organization that is other than physical; in other words, it is the management
of distributed work teams whose members predominantly communicate and coordinate
their work through the electronic media. Virtual leaders are boundary managers who
inspire people from a distance to develop self-management capabilities.
Schmidt (2014) suggested that some of the challenges with virtual leadership are the
social process, the impact of information processing, and the indirect effects of
leadership on the team. In this issue, Rama K. Hart presents a study that focuses on the
role of mentoring relationships in virtual teams, exploring how these relationships
emerge and flourish, and what is their impact on LD. Among important conclusions of
her study is that supportive leader behavior contributes to informal developmental
relationships and, thus, to the effectiveness of virtual team functioning. At the same
time, these supportive behaviors are becoming increasingly feasible due to the
emergence of new digital communication technologies.
In response to calls for more team-oriented LD, the models of shared leadership have
become a growing area of theoretical development and a trend in LD practice. Pearce
and Conger (2002) suggested that shared leadership takes place when leadership is
broadly distributed among individuals in the organization, which is in stark contrast to
traditional views and practices where leadership is centralized in the hands of a handful
of individuals. In this issue, Robert Barnett and Nancy Weidenfeller address questions
such as what shared leadership is and with whom is leadership shared, and further, how
is leadership shared. They review recent empirical findings to summarize what is
known today about shared leadership in teams. The authors demonstrate that there is
significant empirical evidence of relationship between shared leadership and positive
organizational outcomes. Furthermore, utilizing the results of their research in business
organizations, the authors discuss mechanisms and processes that lead to the emergence
of shared leadership, especially in small groups and work teams, and contrast the shared
leadership models with earlier models of team development and performance.
Ardichvili et al. 281

LD Approaches: Current and Emerging Practices

In the previous section, we discussed a number of emerging theoretical frameworks that
provide basis for LD programs. In this section, we switch our attention to several
practices and methods and show how these practices, most of which have been part of
the LD toolkit for some time, are changing and evolving in response to new demands
of the workplace and the larger environment.
Thus, action learning is one of the learning and development methods that has been
practiced in business, non-profit, and educational organizations for more than 50
years. However, in recent years it has also become one of the fastest growing parts of
many LD programs (O’Neill & Marsick, 2009). Mary Volz-Peacock, Bea Carson, and
Michael Marquardt, in this issue, explain why action learning is a powerful method
to develop leadership skills in a variety of settings and with all levels of organizational
leaders. The authors show that the specific model of action learning, proposed by
them and utilized in practice, is grounded in theories from adult learning, educational
and organizational psychology, and organizational science domains. The authors
discuss specific examples of application of action learning in LD in major corporate
organizations and argue that action learning is not only a successful development tool
but also highly cost effective alternative to other approaches. Of special note are case
studies, discussed by the authors, showing how action learning is used to develop
reflection, problem-solving, and decision-making skills.
As in the case of action learning, the use of experience-based learning activities
and programs has a long history both in industry and in educational settings. However,
the emergence of experience-based LD is a relatively recent phenomenon. Based on
a comprehensive review of the literature, Sarah Hezlett, in this issue, provides an
important and current overview of this vast topic. She identifies the key concepts and
reviews empirical findings on experience driven LD. Through an action-oriented
framework, the author highlights the gaps in knowledge about the main factors that
need to be taken into account when experience-based leadership programs are
designed, conducted, and evaluated. An especially important discussion in this article
focuses on types of support that leaders, participating in experiential programs, find
the most useful. The article concludes with important suggestions for future
exploration of the topic and aspects of experiential LD.
In the previous section, we talked about the growing role of virtual leadership,
enabled and necessitated by the ubiquitous nature of digital technologies. However,
the benefits of the use of digital technologies come with often unexpected and hard to
predict side effects. Among these problems are the information overload and stress,
brought about by uninterrupted access to enormous stores of data and constantly
generated new information, available 24/7 through multiple digital channels. In these
conditions, lack of attention and inability to concentrate on important issues (as
opposed to reacting to short-term information stimuli) have become serious barriers
to creativity, innovation, and effective leadership (Hansen & Haas, 2001). In this
issue, William Brendel and Carmela Bennett explore this aspect of LD in their study
of application of mindfulness and related somatic processes. The authors describe a
developmental approach that allows individuals to embody leadership, enabling
282 Advances in Developing Human Resources 18(3)

deeper and thus more sustainable change. The authors have developed a
developmental sequence for LD, based on their analysis of the complementary aspects
of mindfulness and somatic theory and practices.
As suggested earlier, the environment in which leaders operate today is
characterized by complexity, accelerating change, competition, and innovation
(Dooley, 2004). Among the topics included in this special issue, Steven Manderscheid
and Nancy Harrower look at how this impacts leadership transition, defined as a
period of transition from one leadership role to another, from the perspective of
paradoxes and dilemmas or polarities. The authors define polarities as situations
where there are no simple either/or solutions, where both existing alternatives are
necessary, where problems cannot be solved by simple elimination of one of the
alternatives. Furthermore, the authors assert that polarity thinking is a necessary
attribute of a successful leader, and applying polarity thinking is especially important
during leadership transitions. In their qualitative study, the authors have identified
five polarities typical of transition periods, as well as strategies used to manage these
polarities.

Conclusion
In summary, we hope that this special issue will be a useful resource for HRD scholars
and practitioners, by not only offering new insights into emerging and current practices
of LD but also providing impetus for further research in areas that are growing in
importance in the world of practice, but have not yet received sufficient coverage in the
academic and scholar-practitioner literature. We acknowledge that LD is a vast topic,
and the likelihood of one special issue capturing all important emerging trends is
extremely low. The choice of topics to include in this issue was based on our experience
in practical work with LD and our familiarity with scholarly research in this area. Given
the size limitation of a special issue, we had to make difficult choices regarding the
inclusion or exclusion of certain initially proposed topics. There are many other
emerging models, frameworks, and practices that we could have included in the issue.
For a glimpse into other possibilities, we refer the readers to McCallum and
O’Connell’s (2009) work on social capital and LD, the fast growing literature on both
theory and practice of LD for sustainability and corporate responsibility (e.g., Avery &
Bergsteiner, 2011; Pless, Maak, & Stahl, 2011), LD through service-learning projects
(Pless & Maak, 2011), Mabey’s (2013) analysis of practical implications of alternative
(e.g., critical or dialogic) approaches to the analysis of LD practices, and work on the
relationship between employee engagement and LD (Shuck & Herd, 2012).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
Ardichvili et al. 283

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

References
Alexander, C. S., & Sysko, J. M. (2013). I’m gen Y, I love feeling entitled, and it shows.
Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 17, 127-131.
Ardichvili, A., & Manderscheid, S. V. (2008). Emerging practices in leadership development:
An introduction. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10, 619-631.
doi:10.1177/1523422308321718
Avery, G. C., & Bergsteiner, H. (2011). Sustainable leadership: Honeybee and locust
approaches. New York, NY: Routledge.
Baker, M. N. (2014). Peer-to-peer leadership: Why the network is the leader. San Francisco,
CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Barrett, A., & Beeson, J. (2002). Developing business leaders for 2010. New York, NY: The
Conference Board.
Bersin by Deloitte. (2014, January). The corporate learning Factbook® 2014: Benchmarks,
trends and analysis of the U.S. training market (Bersin & Associates Factbook Report).
Retrieved from http://marketing.bersin.com/corporate-learning-factbook-2014.html
Callahan, J. L., Whitener, J. K., & Sandlin, J. A. (2007). The art of creating leaders: Popular
culture artifacts as pathways for development. Advances in Developing Human Resources,
9, 146-165. doi:10.1177/1523422306298856
Clarke, N. (2013). Model of complexity leadership development. Human Resource Development
International, 16, 135-150.
DasGupta, P. (2011). Literature review: E-Leadership. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 4(1), 1-
36.
Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. The Leadership Quarterly,
11, 581-613. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00061-8
Day, D. V., Fleenor, J., Atwater, L., Sturm, R., & McKee, R. (2014). Advances in leader and
leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. Leadership
Quarterly, 25, 63-82.
Day, D. V., Harrison, M. M., & Halpin, S. M. (2009). An integrative theory of leadership
development: Connecting adult development, identity, and expertise. New York, NY:
Psychology Press.
Dooley, K. J. (2004). Complexity science models of organizational change and innovation. In
S. M. Poole & A. H Van de Veen (Eds.), Handbook of organizational change and
innovation ( pp. 354-373). New York. NY: Oxford University Press.
Edwards, G., & Turnbull, S. (2013). A cultural approach to evaluating leadership development.
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 15, 46-60.
Gurjian, P., Halbeisen, T., & Lane, K. (2014, January). Why Leadership development programs
fail. McKinsey Quarterly, 1-6.
Gurr, D. (2004). ICT, leadership in education and e-leadership. Discourse, 25, 113-124.
Hansen, M. T., & Haas, M. (2001). Competing for attention in knowledge markets: Electronic
document dissemination in a management consulting company. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 46, 1-28.
Hanson, B. (2013). The leadership development interface: Aligning leaders and organizations
toward more effective leadership learning. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 15,
106-120. doi:10.1177/1523422312465853
284 Advances in Developing Human Resources 18(3)

Hollon, J. (2011). Leadership Development: 7 key trends for the 21st century. TLNT: Talent
Management and HR. Retrieved from http://www.eremedia.com/tlnt/leadership-
development-7-key-trends-for-the-21st-century/
Kaiser, R., & Curphy, G. (2013). Leadership development: The failure of an industry and an
opportunity for consulting psychologists. Consulting Psychology Journal, 65, 294-302.
Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. (2009). Immunity to change: How to overcome it and unlock potential in
yourself and your organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kellerman, B. (2012). Cut off at the pass: The limits of leadership in the 21st century. In
Governance studies at Brookings (pp. 1-12). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Kellerman, B. (2012). Cut off at the pass: The limits of leadership in the 21st century. Brookings
Institution. Retrieved April 7, 2016, from http://www.brookings.edu/research/
papers/2012/08/10-leadership-kellerman
Kerfoot, K. M. (2010). Listening to see: The key to virtual leadership. Nursing Economics, 28,
114-115.
Lee Hecht Harrison. (2015). Research insights: Investments in leadership development to
increase. Retrieved from http://www.lhh.com/en-US/thought-
leadership/Documents/articles/research-insights-leadership-development.pdf
Ligon, G. S., Hunter, S. T., & Mumford, M. D. (2008). Development of outstanding leadership:
A life narrative approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 312-334.
Loew, L., & O’Leonard, K. (2012). Leadership development fact book 2012: Benchmarks and
trends in U.S. leadership development, Bersin by Deloitte report. Oakland, CA: Bersin by
Deloitte.
Lynch, A. (2008). ROI on generation Y employees. Bottom Line Conversations. Retrieved from
http://www.knoxvillechamber.com/pdf/workforce/ROIonGenYWhitePaper.pdf
Mabey, C. (2013). Leadership development in organizations: Multiple discourses and diverse
practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15, 359-380.
Madsen, S. R. (2012). Women and leadership in higher education: Current realities and
challenges. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 14, 131-139.
McCallum, S., & O’Connell, D. (2009). Social capital and leadership development: Building
stronger leadership through enhanced relational skills. Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, 30, 152-166.
Mumford, M. D., & Gibson, C. (2011). Developing leadership for creative efforts. Advances in
Developing Human Resources, 13, 243-247.
O’Neill, J., & Marsick, V. (2009). Peer mentoring and action learning. Adult Learning, 20(1-2),
19-24.
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2002). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of
leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Petrie, N. (2014). Future trends in leadership development. The Center for Creative Leadership.
Retrieved from http://insights.ccl.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/futureTrends.pdf
Pless, N. M., & Maak, T. (2011). Developing responsible global leaders through international
service-learning programs: The Ulysses experience. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 10, 237-260.
Pless, N. M., Maak, T., & Stahl, G. K. (2011). Developing responsible global leaders through
international service-learning programs: The Ulysses experience. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 10, 237-260.
Ruderman, M., Clerkin, C., & Connolly, C. (2014). Leadership development beyond
competencies: Moving to a holistic approach. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ardichvili et al. 285

Schmidt, G. B. (2014). Virtual leadership: An important leadership context. Industrial and

Organizational Psychology, 7, 182-187.
Shuck, B., & Herd, A. (2012). Employee engagement and leadership: Exploring the convergence
of two frameworks and implications for leadership development in HRD. Human Resource
Development Review, 11, 156-181.
Sinar, E., Wellins, R. S., Ray, R., Abel, A. L., & Neal, S. N. (2015). Global leadership forecast
2014/2015. Development Dimensions International. Retrieved from http://www.ddiworld.
com/ddi/media/trend-research/global-leadership-forecast-2014-2015_tr_ddi.pdf?ext=.pdf
Stanley, C. A. (2009). Giving voice from the perspective of African American women leaders.
Advances in Developing Resources, 11, 551-561.
Stogdill, R. (1974). Handbook of leadership. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Swanson, R. A., & Chermack, T. J. (2013). Theory building in applied disciplines. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Yukl, G. A. (2009). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). New Jersey, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ziskin, E. (2015). Developing the next generation of leaders: Trends and truths about the future
of leadership development. HR People + Strategy: SHRM’s Executive Network. Retrieved
from http://www.hrps.org/blogpost/1277488/219073/Developing-the-Next-Generation-
ofLeaders-Trends-and-Truths-about-the-Future-of-Leadership-Development

Author Biographies
Alexandre Ardichvili is professor of HRD and Hellervik Endowed Chair in the Department of
Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development at the University of Minnesota. His
research interests include international HRD, leadership, entrepreneurship, knowledge
management, and organizational culture. His most recent area of interest is the interplay of
business ethics, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and organizational and national cultures.
He provides consulting services or conducts applied research at large business organizations
(among them Caterpillar, Honeywell, the Carlson Companies, ADM, ADC, and Target), and
small businesses and non-profits. He is the president-elect of the University Council for
Workforce and Human Resource Education (UCWHRE), and a fellow at the Center for Ethical
Business Cultures.
Kristina Natt och Dag is director of Kanof Institute for Physician Leadership with North
Carolina Medical Society. She holds an MA in human rights from the University of Lund in
Sweden and completed her doctorate in HRD at the North Carolina State University. Her areas
of interest are in leadership development (LD) and CSR. Special areas within LD include
authentic leadership, global leadership and leadership in health care. She further provides
consulting services in the areas of LD, organizational development and evaluation in the United
States as well as her native Sweden and Denmark.
Steven Manderscheid is professor of human resource management in the College of Business
and Technology at Concordia University, St. Paul. He holds a master’s degree in HRD from the
University of Minnesota and a doctorate in organization development from the University of St.
Thomas in Minneapolis, MN. His consulting and publications focus on LD and strategy.
Moreover, he has had the opportunity to present his research in China, England, France,
Malaysia, and Turkey.